Story: Google: An Apology
Posted by: James (Thursday 11 August 2005, 3:44 PM)
Congratulations - with your unrepentant attitude and sophomoric sarcasm you've clearly identified yourselves as the bad guys here.
The original article buried what should have been two interesting cautionery stories (about the information trails we leave behind us and Google's questionable data retention policies) under a mountain of unnecessary privacy-invasion and cheap personal shots. It was utterly unnecessary (and you had no right) to explictiely identify the person you'd researched, and selecting Google's CEO was a blatant attack both on his person and the company, making it very obvious the author had some kind of axe to grind.
A professional journalist, acting with integrity, would either have anonymised the person but reported a frightening selection of facts about them or "objectively" researched their own (or a colleague's) life. They would certainly have asked permission before publicly holding anyone up to such unwanted scrutiny.
Simply because the information is out there, that doesn't justify publicising it. Light is constantly bouncing off your body when you're at home, but that wouldn't justify poking a camera through the blinds and taking naked photos of the "journalist" who caused this furore, would it?
Granted, Google appears to have over-reacted in blacklisting CNet for a year, but it was both the journalist *and* CNet the company who allowed this hatchet-job to be posted to the site, and since you've left yourself open to lawsuits for such blatant and deliberate infringement of privacy I'd say you got off lightly.
With this childish attempt at getting one more dig in you demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is more about a personal vendetta against Google, and not (as you will no doubt claim) reporting in the public interest.
This is doubly uncalled-for, because Google themselves are the ones making this information available. Unless you are seriously arguing for the abolishment of all search engines (which would pretty much render the web useless), it should be obvious to all that the onus is on the user to use their service responsibly. Congratulations - you are the first entity to publicly prove that you can't.
In addition, your sensationalist methods have quite obscured the *important* parts of this debate - how to deal with the increasing transparency of an information society, and Google's data retention policies. If you were trying to make any point at all in the public interest, you have therefore failed miserably.
You should know that this pathetic display has quite turned around my opinion of the integrity and professionalism of ZDNet and CNet both, and I will no longer be using your websites or purchasing your publications in any form.
Full Talkback thread
Story: Google: An Apology
-
My snarkiness meter's going nuts! espd -
That's not an apology, that's a slap in the face.... Anonymous
-
Sarcasm is the refuge of the weak. Abram Nichols -
Well said. Speaking as a US technology worker wit... Jonathon Doe
-
I really enjoy the conditions that you put on your... Ed Stankiewicz
-
Only the Brits could come up with an apology that... Marc Schlenker
-
"Only the Brits could come up with an apology... chahn
-
While the orginal published article about chief ex... Shockwave
-
Could CNET/ZDnet and Google please show profe... Raoul Teeuwen
-
ahhhhh, The good old days, When the ARAP... itmeens u kntakeajoke -
Oh wow, Cnet really is showing it's true colors. W... Why would I give you guys my name?
-
Hahahaha beautiful piece of writing! A fittin... GR
-
Sounds like sour grapes ZDNET... suck it up a... Anonymous
-
Great piece of writing! Felix Ramos
-
Weirdness. If someone snaps a picture of a Google... Anonymous
-
Functionally illiterate... that's what I'm th... GR
-
GR,
Here, Here. Has the rest of the wo... Dave
-
Google:
Slowly, but surely, they drew their plans... Wildey Monkey
-
There is no way Google is going to accept this ins... Kevin Forbes
-
Well said, sarastic and excellent. iyerns
-
You are hereby banned and blacklisted fo... Eric E. Schmidt
-
I hope Google does ban you. There is such a thing... Anonymous
-
Could the author of this article publish his detai... feedback
-
Congratulations - with your unrepentant attitude a... James -
I don't see how anyone can see the response f... Andrew Davidson
-
Ahhhh...There is nothing quite so refreshing as a... Alan McSwain
-
Nice to see someone actually stand up the the... Anonymous
-
Hey Eric...What's up with the Yahoo email acc... Alan McSwain
-
Its funny how CNET has the nerve to say Google is... marc
-
Sarcastic snobbery aside-- Google is within their... j.m.
-
pathetic...apologize for this? please tell me wha... Anonymous
-
gotta say i lost a little respect for google, they... Anonymous
-
Is it means that Google rule the world? Takács Sándor
-
ZDNet - I thought better of you. Are you not... Anonymous
-
I don't get this.
Google is a publically trad... Anonymous
-
In response to the previous comment....... Anonymous
-
What amuses me are the reponses to ths article att... Dave
-
I am not sure what your organization expects in th... Brad
-
brilliant british beating... mumta
-
Google isn't mad because of the posting of some pe... Gabe da Silveira
-
What the paparazzi does is technically legal... Ben
-
Hmmm, if Google wants you to censor your articles,... Anonymous
-
ROFL
oops!
You guys crawl so pretty :D Anonymous
-
I'm surprised at the number of commenters here who... Anonymous
-
Ah, yes...and here I always thought sarcasm w... Anonymous
-
Its not so much that you shouldn't report concerns... Anonymous
-
Very funny, indeed. Shame on you for accessing pub... Vernon R. Martin
-
I wish the US sister company had the good forsight... Travellar05
-
That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a... Vasco de Sousa
-
My estimation of this sites readership has go... Eric Van Hoolenburger
-
Good for them. CNET and it's sisters deserve a ba... Tony L. Franzese
-
Bravo!!!
Glad to see SOMEONE has the backbone to s... Karim
-
Congratulations! This was an excellent, well writt... Harpalus
-
Google thinks it rules the world. If tomorrow... const change;
-
Oh yeah. Cumshot at google's face. Barrapunto
-
Wasn't Google's motto 'Don't be evil'?
It's going... Don't be Evil
-
Is it surprising that all the rants at this "apolo... kedaha
-
MISSES THE POINT: Google's CEO wasn't angry about... Michael B
-
No, YOU missed the point. The article wasn't... John G
-
Agree with John G.
Also, I think that th... Anonymous
-
Google's "attitude" is clearly shown by the fact t... J. Michael Keating
-
Or, at least, don't use Google to do your searches... Michael Odza
-
1984 bigbrother is here, zdnet should go into more... Dc s
-
classic! great stuff Anonymous
-
VOTE WITH YOUR MOUSE... there are plenty of other... HowardB
-
So many idiots, not enough room to slate them... Queen Liz
-
What??
So the inventors of the atomic bomb are wro... Sam Ud-din
Back to: Google: An Apology
